Self-study
A cognitive psychologist has claimed that intelligence is the ability to figure out how things work in order to overcome obstacles. ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ █████████████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ █████████████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████████
Objective: Method of Reasoning Questions
Method of Reasoning questions present an argument (sometimes flawed, often not) in the stimulus, then ask us to describe the argument’s structure in abstract terms. The approach to these questions is quite straightforward, even if it’s often difficult to execute:
- Identify the argument’s premises and conclusions.
- Form an abstract model of the argument in your mind, either by recognizing one of the common argument forms or by putting the structure into your own words.
- Choose the answer that accurately describes the argument’s structure.
For a quick example of abstraction.
Substantive Argument
Mary always walks to school. There are only two routes: through the park or along Main Street. The butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker all confirm that Mary wasn't on Main Street. Therefore, Mary took the park route.
Abstract Argument
The argument establishes that there are only two possibilities and eliminates one of them in order to conclude that the other must be the case.
Distilling The Argument’s Structure
Our conclusion is marked quite
Substance: The cog psych’s definition is inadequate.
Abstraction: Opponent’s definition is bad.
Just from here we can guess at what the rest of the stimulus does. It probably presents an opponent’s definition (that’s context) and then offers some reason why the definition is bad (that’s a premise). Which, yeah, that’s what happens.
First the context:
Substance: Cog Psych says intelligence is 1) figuring stuff out because 2) you want to overcome obstacles.
Abstraction: Opponent says [Concept] has two prerequisites: Factor 1 needs to be true, and it needs to be true because of Factor 2.
Parsing the premise is hard. Follow the highlighting for clarity on how the concepts match up:
Substance:Imagine a being thatunderstands how things work butdidn’t get there because it wanted to overcome some obstacle .We would still think it was intelligent .
Abstraction:Here’s an example thatmeets the first prerequisite butnot the second . We all agreethis example should still count as [Concept].
Now let’s put all the abstract elements together.
Abstraction: Your definition of [Concept] has two requirements. Here’s an example that only meets one requirement. We all agree this example should still count as [Concept], though. So your definition is bad.
This is essentially a reductio ad absurdum: if we accepted your definition, we’d be forced to have a stupid take on this hypothetical case, so we shouldn’t accept your definition.
Complicated though this process may seem, you should in fact aspire to develop an abstract model this detailed before moving into the answer choices. It’s doable, especially with targeted, untimed practice focused narrowly on abstraction.
13.
In the passage the author ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
rejects a definition ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ██ ██████
Everything in (A) is solid except “impractical to determine which cases it covers.” A stimulus where (A) is right would present an example in which it’s hard to tell whether or not some being counts as intelligent according to the definition. Like “Check out this monkey – does it meet both the conditions? I dunno! The terms are too vague.”
Our stimulus offers an example where we for sure know the definition ought to cover this case (but it doesn’t).
b
uses a hypothetical ███████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████████ ████████████████ ████████████
This argument does indeed use a
Let’s break down what it means for something to have “counterintuitive consequences.” You can think of “counterintuitive” in two parts – start with a core intuition, and then counter that intuition.
So like a light switch. Up is ON, right? And down is OFF. When a light switch works that way, we call it “intuitive” design. It matches our intuition about how light switches work.
A counterintuitive light switch would work the other way – up is OFF, down is ON.
In this question, the intuition we all (supposedly) share is that this hypothetical being has intelligence. Like hey imagine this hypothetical being – seems intelligent, right? And then the author expects us all to nod and be like “yes definitely feels intelligent to me.”
But one consequence of the Cog Psych’s definition is that this being isn’t intelligent because it fails to meet one of the definition’s criteria (figuring stuff out because you want to overcome obstacles). That runs counter to our (supposed) intuition that the being should be considered intelligent.
Imagine I tried to define “dog” to you as “four-legged creature with a tail.” You might respond by pointing to a cat and saying “so that’s a dog then, right?” That would be you revealing that my definition has counterintuitive consequences.
Anyway, this argument lays out a definition, presents a hypothetical scenario in which that definition gives the intuitively wrong answer, and concludes it’s a bad definition.
Extra Credit – Appeals to Intuition
Diving one step deeper because this will be important in your legal career, appealing to intuition is perfectly acceptable and quite common, but it has limitations. Appeals to intuition can be exceptionally powerful when your audience happens to share that intuition, but fall completely flat if your audience does not. Darth Vader appealed to Luke’s intuition when he said “Search your feelings, you know it to be true.” That blew Luke’s mind because he searched his feelings and knew it to be true. It matched his intuition. But imagine if Luke searched his feelings and was like “nah actually I kinda don’t think it’s true.”
c
argues that a ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████
(C) and (D) are the answer choices that really demand a precise, thorough understanding of the argument’s structure.
(C) says our author’s complaint is that the definition isn’t narrow enough, but our author’s actual complaint is that the definition is too narrow.
The given example is a case that should count as intelligent but doesn’t under the definition. The cog psych needs to broaden the scope of their definition, not make it narrower.
Aside from that, (C) also says the definition isn’t narrow enough to be applied, which goes a bit far. We can apply the definition just fine, it just yields bad results when we do.
d
rejects a definition ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████
(D) does the same thing as (C), painting the definition as too broad when in fact the definition is too narrow. Everything else is spot on.
Per our argument, if the cog psych’s definition is correct, intelligence would fail to apply to things to which it normally does apply. Regarding this being who understands how things work, the definition says it shouldn’t count as intelligent, but our author says it should.
e
argues against a ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████████ ██████ ██ █████████
(E) points to a common flaw – the inappropriate appeal to authority. Or rather, (E) says our author is pointing to that common flaw.
Just like the wrong answers to Flaw questions often cleanly point to common flaws that aren’t the one featured in the stimulus, wrong answers to Method of Reasoning questions often point to common argument structures that aren’t the one featured in the stimulus. That’s what’s happening here.
But, you know, that’s just not what the author is doing here. Appealing to the wrong authority is saying “I know the moon landing is fake because Steph Curry said so.”* For (E) to be right, our author would have to accuse the cog psych of doing that, which…where?
*That’s a real thing that happened. Fortunately, Steph Curry later clarified that he was joking, retracted his statements, and toured a NASA facility where he held some dope moon rocks.